Section M F-4 Thermal Battery Shipping 28 Jan 26.docx

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award For

Foreign Military Sales

Unclassified F-4 Thermal Battery Shipping

28 January 2026

M. Christensen

Contents

Source Selection Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive, best-value source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Approach/Technical Risk and Price. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors and IAW the criteria set forth below, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall approach of the higherpriced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Number of Contracts to Be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for shipping of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-4 thermal batteries. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and/or funds available.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions By submitting its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation's terms and conditions can result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Discussions Each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government intends to make award without discussions. If, however, the Government engages in discussions following the conclusion of these discussions, the offeror's Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be evaluated in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce deficiencies or risk such that the offeror's proposal may be downgraded or determined to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The award will be made to the offeror proposing the best value solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

· Subfactor 4: Identity, quantity and condition verification

· Subfactor 5: Historical Performance Factor 2: Price Relative importance of Factors and Subfactors The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Price). However, Factor 2 (Price) will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 are more important than 3, 4 or 5. However, all Technical Subfactors will contribute to the overall selection decision.

Factor 1: Technical The technical evaluation will provide an assessment of the quality of the offeror's technical approach and the risk associated with the technical approach for meeting the Government's requirements. The offeror's technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into a single rating for Factor 1 (Technical).

Technical Subfactors The following five (5) subfactors comprise Factor 1 (Technical):

· Subfactor 4: Identity, quantity and condition verification

· Subfactor 5: Historical Performance The Government will evaluate all Subfactors IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, DOD DFARS PGI Subpart 215.3 August 20, 2022, Methodology 1: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process. This provides for two (2) distinct, but related, assessments: Technical and Technical Risk.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies The evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies for all Subfactors are defined as follows:

· Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Aspects of the offeror's proposal that receive a strength may be incorporated into the contract.

Technical Ratings All Subfactors will each receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 3.1 below. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement.

TABLE 3.1 Technical Ratings

Technical Risk Rating

1) Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2) All subfactors will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 3.2. below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

‑Table 3.2 Technical Risk Ratings

Technical Subfactors The technical proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor criteria and the requirements as documented in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor 1: Transportation Plan and Schedule This subfactor details how the Government will determine the degree to which the offeror’s transportation plan and methodology meet the requirements as identified in the PWS while reducing risk to the successful completion of those requirements.

The Government will evaluate the completeness and appropriateness of the offeror’s transportation plan and schedule. The offeror’s transportation plan is acceptable when it includes, but is not limited to, mode of transportation and route, has identified any potential risks associated to achieve the requirements of the PWS and includes a narrative description for mitigation of those identified risks.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed schedule, after contract award, to pick up, transport and deliver for acceptance the thermal batteries. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the USG target of 45 days as identified in the PWS. The offeror may receive a more favorable rating for exceeding the target. Offers that do not meet the target may be considered awardable with a higher technical risk rating.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s description of their methodology for maintaining chain of custody compliant with the terms of the PWS. The offeror’s methodology is considered acceptable and complete when the offeror’s proposal adequately details their chain of custody methodology to provide for 100% accountability of the assets from pick up to delivery/acceptance.

1.1.1 Subfactor 2: Documentation

This subfactor details how the Government will determine the degree to which the offeror’s narrative demonstrates a complete understanding of the documentation required for transport of hazardous materials/dangerous goods. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of their methodology for identification and compliance with all regulatory requirements and the completeness and appropriateness of their methodology. Responses to this subfactor are considered acceptable when the offeror has completely, accurately and appropriately identified the regulatory requirements and documentation required for transportation of the thermal batteries and documented their methodology for compliance.

Subfactor 3: Packing and Labeling The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of the Special Packaging Instructions associated with the assets being shipped. The offeror’s response to this subfactor is considered acceptable when their description appropriately, correctly and completely details all unique packing, handling and labeling regulations or requirements associated with the shipment of thermal batteries internationally.

Subfactor 4: Identify, Quantity and Condition Verification The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of their methodology for inspecting and verifying the identity, quantity and condition of the assets being shipped. The offeror’s response is considered acceptable when their narrative description is appropriate, complete and details the steps that will be taken to verify identity, quantity and condition at pickup and delivery.

Subfactor 5: Historical Performance The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s evidence and/or artifacts completely and appropriately support their prior successful performance of similar effort(s) shipping hazardous materials internationally. The offeror’s response is considered acceptable when they provide appropriate evidence and/or artifacts supporting their past performance and that evidence identifies the government contract, materials transported, and/or successful delivery/acceptance of same or similar items as the thermal batteries. In the event the offeror is utilizing a subcontractor, partner or teaming agreement to meet this requirement, the response is considered acceptable when the third party has been identified and that party’s evidence and/or artifacts appropriately support their successful performance of similar effort(s).

FACTOR 2: Price The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including all prime and major subcontractors. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices and rates proposed in the Over and Above Labor Rate Matrices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

Reasonableness The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), or through price analysis.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, one or more of the proposed prices is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. If the offeror proposes any advance procurement IAW Section L, paragraph 4.5, the Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to advance procurement. When advance procurement is part of the program, the price of components, material, parts, and effort budgeted for advance procurement shall be relatively low compared to the remaining portion of the end item's price. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Options There are no options in connection with this award.

Government Furnished Property The Government will not provide any Government Furnished Property (GFP) to the offeror for completion of this requirement.

5. Appendix A ACRONYMS The acronyms listed in Table 5.1 are used in this document.

‑Table 5.1: Acronyms

image1.png